duenor:Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.

Like Egypt, where a bunch of peaceful, unarmed protesters overthrew the government?

kiwimoogle84:$500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

I've owned a 1200cc sportbike for ten years now, am still breathing and being a PITA to the same girlfriend I had when I first bought it. I might trade it on something smaller since I want something with better gas mileage and haven't taken any long trips on it in some while.

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

By the time they had them, they were starved, weak, disorganized. And they had piss-poor ones in inadequate numbers. Look up the "Liberator" pistol in google. that was the kind of "gun" they were provided with by the allies. they never seriously wanted to help the jews revolt... they just wanted them to be a disruptive force behind enemy lines.

Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.

An AR-15 (or Mini14, or SKS, or M1 Garand, or M-14) in my home does not constitute a threat to the government on its own. But when a large number of the populace is thus effectively armed, it provides a certain final check against oppression.

So why don't you and your fellow patriots storm government buildings in California to check against this oppression?

cptjeff:Was the spouse, under state law, allowed to be in possession of those guns? Because if the law says that you're not allowed to own guns if you live with somebody adjudicated to be unstable, than the spouse was in unlawful possession of firearms.

Did you not read the link? Here:

Baird is concerned that the law, as it exists now, is already ripe for abuse. "I have a recent case where a person said he wasn't [previously] concerned about my client's guns but he started to think about Newtown and then he called the police."

She also represents a woman, Barbara Doutel, in a federal lawsuit that claims Norwalk, Conn., police violated Doutel's constitutional rights to possess a firearm to protect her home when they seized her guns because of a complaint against her husband.

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Your first defenseagainst tyranny, you mean. And I agree entirely, and hope that that will always be enough. But any student of history, even of only US history, knows that the government is more than capable of using force as a way to impose its will upon a subjugated group.

See: blacks before brown vs board of education, native americans right up to 1960 when native american kids were still being kidnapped from their homes in maine for "their own good", japanese americans during ww2, chinese during the yellow peril....

One should read the 9 exceptions to FOIA. After doing so, and realizing that it basically means that the government can ignore the constitution if it feels that it's for "national security" (who defines and checks that?)....

So I reiterate. Vote. Join the political process. Be heard, engage. Volunteer. Be educated. But also keep your guns.

remember, historians call periods of peace by another name: the "inter-war" years.

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Very true. Still, those things can (and do) fail from time to time.

The idea that the people should no longer have any hope of recourse in that event (even if it's largely symbolic) is a biatchilling.

As important as I think it is for my son to learn his rights and responsibilities in ensuring that our free and democratic society remains so, I think it's also important to teach that there is never any good reason to go quietly when someone wants to load you into a cattle car.

When it comes to mental illness, I don't think the state should destroy your firearms, and I think you should be compensated for it if they do. I'm kind of a stickler for due process. The state should hold on to your weapons until you are deemed fit by doctors and a judge to have your rights restored, after which time your property should be handed back over. Barring that, I think it should be acceptable for a relative (that you don't share a residence with) to hold on to your weapons and secure them while your shiat gets sorted out.

At the very least, you could sell grandpa's old M1 instead of melting it down. Maybe the CADOJ should have a direct-sales program for FFL-C&R weapons to collectors across the country if they're hard-up for cash.

geekbikerskum:kiwimoogle84: $500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

I've owned a 1200cc sportbike for ten years now, am still breathing and being a PITA to the same girlfriend I had when I first bought it. I might trade it on something smaller since I want something with better gas mileage and haven't taken any long trips on it in some while.

It was kind of meant to be a joke at my own expense, didn't mean to threadjack WHATSOEVER. It was just crappy timing that a freighter truck didn't look left before making a turn, yet the bikers are always blamed as being at fault by the good ol' po-po's. Paid off my wedding with his life insurance. Hence the depression, and our guns being removed from the house by his brothers, for my own good.

Fark It:When it comes to mental illness, I don't think the state should destroy your firearms, and I think you should be compensated for it if they do. I'm kind of a stickler for due process. The state should hold on to your weapons until you are deemed fit by doctors and a judge to have your rights restored, after which time your property should be handed back over. Barring that, I think it should be acceptable for a relative (that you don't share a residence with) to hold on to your weapons and secure them while your shiat gets sorted out.

At the very least, you could sell grandpa's old M1 instead of melting it down. Maybe the CADOJ should have a direct-sales program for FFL-C&R weapons to collectors across the country if they're hard-up for cash.

They don't just show up unannounced at take your guns away. They notify you that you may no longer own firearms, and you are given a period of time in which to sell your guns.

kiwimoogle84:vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me//didn't die by gunshot wound/not that anyone cares

Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...

$500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

/I take cash or credit

I knew I had you farkied for a reason, and now I remember. It's because you crack me the fark up.

Heamer:My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?

I agree! We should make sure that all gangbangers and felons have weapons! Who are we to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights?

HotWingConspiracy:duenor: remember, historians call periods of peace by another name: the "inter-war" years.

No, that's strictly the period between the two world wars. It's called peace time, not arm yourself to the teeth in a fit of paranoia time.

Ah, I see - the time to arm yourself is after the boot's been applied to the back of your neck.No one is advocating for overthrowing a nation. Quite the contrary - a lightly armed populace is in defense of that nation.

And you are incorrect about "interwar years" only referring to the period between WW1 and WW2. Might I add that the 1920s were gloriously prosperous years for the United States. No one thought that the world would be at war ten years later.

kiwimoogle84:It was kind of meant to be a joke at my own expense, didn't mean to threadjack WHATSOEVER. It was just crappy timing that a freighter truck didn't look left before making a turn, yet the bikers are always blamed as being at fault by the good ol' po-po's. Paid off my wedding with his life insurance. Hence the depression, and our guns being removed from the house by his brothers, for my own good.

Wow, I'm so sorry. My sympathies on the loss of your husband.

I thought you were engaging in the usual "HURR DONORCYCLES HERP DERP" that, well, I hear quite a lot of, and have been hearing since the 1980s when I first learned to ride. I hear it so much that I get kind of defensive about it. And it certainly does come up a lot around these parts whenever motorcycles get mentioned. Anyway, my most sincere apologies for shooting off my mouth before engaging my brain, and for any pain or grief I might have caused.

cptjeff:DisregardTheFollowing: I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.

What if they run out of pills, or forget to take them, and immediately revert to being a danger to themselves and others?

A lot of mental illness is not "cured". It is managed. If that management goes away for whatever reason, which happens, people can go right back to the state that got them put in a mental institution by a judge.

You can have my Xanax, Thorazine, and pistols when you pry them from my cold dead hands at the scene of the crime.

Princess Ryans Knickers:Heamer: My brother's friend is a paranoid schizophrenic who killed a man by using a ceramic flower pot just outside the victim's front door. If anything, we shouldn't be taking arms away from the mentally ill, we should be giving them all flower pots. Wait, what are we talking about?

I agree! We should make sure that all gangbangers and felons have weapons! Who are we to decide who gets 2nd Amendment rights?

geekbikerskum:kiwimoogle84: It was kind of meant to be a joke at my own expense, didn't mean to threadjack WHATSOEVER. It was just crappy timing that a freighter truck didn't look left before making a turn, yet the bikers are always blamed as being at fault by the good ol' po-po's. Paid off my wedding with his life insurance. Hence the depression, and our guns being removed from the house by his brothers, for my own good.

Wow, I'm so sorry. My sympathies on the loss of your husband.

I thought you were engaging in the usual "HURR DONORCYCLES HERP DERP" that, well, I hear quite a lot of, and have been hearing since the 1980s when I first learned to ride. I hear it so much that I get kind of defensive about it. And it certainly does come up a lot around these parts whenever motorcycles get mentioned. Anyway, my most sincere apologies for shooting off my mouth before engaging my brain, and for any pain or grief I might have caused.

After five years, if I can't joke about it, I'm truly dead inside. I started it, so don't worry at all.

And Todashy- I do my best to please. Glad someone's sick enough to laugh at my terrible jokes :P

Well, my day's wrapping up, I'll peek into the thread later to see if the commies or the gun nuts won.

Ionessa:As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

kiwimoogle84:vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me//didn't die by gunshot wound/not that anyone cares

Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.

That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...

$500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

/I take cash or credit

I should pay you double. Hubby already has a motorcycle. Obviously your wisdom worked across the whole space-time continuum thing.

/he hadn't ridden it since a minor wreck over a year ago.//you are a strong woman. Quite likely stronger than I.

Yes, the mentally ill who are a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.2. guns that don't belong to the mentally ill person are also eligible for confiscation. so my gun will be taken even though it's my little brother, who I am lovingly caring for, who is suffering manic depression. doesn't matter if it's in a safe, doesn't matter if it's a family heirloom.3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

1. My wife has been an expert witness in commitment cases, though not in CA. Involuntary commitment is much harder than you're assuming, though doubtless there are a few asshole judges out there who wield it like a weapon. Aren't there always?2. This part of the law is against keeping firearms in the same home, not against ownership. Either store your family heirloom, or your suicidal little brother, elsewhere and the state won't care. As for your gun safe, how secure is it really from someone living in your home? Would it be that difficult for your little brother to get his hands on the key while you're asleep? Could it really not be forced open while you're at work, by tools already in your home? Ours certainly could. It'd take some time and make lots of noise, but I could open it. And I'm disabled and can barely walk.3. Here we are generally in agreement, at least in the cases where the gun was legally owned but being kept in an ineligible home. For those, it should be possible to pay a fine, show proof you've acquired proper storage, and retrieve it.

A couple of people in this thread have pointed out that the guns are destroyed thus precluding any possibility of returning them, but even if the confiscated guns should never be returned, why destroy them?

Why not auction them off?

And if you're worried about the wrong people buying them at auction, limit the auction to federally licensed firearms dealers.

The fact that they're destroying them is a huge sign to me that the goal is to eliminate as many guns as possible.

Yes, the mentally ill who are a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.2. guns that don't belong to the mentally ill person are also eligible for confiscation. so my gun will be taken even though it's my little brother, who I am lovingly caring for, who is suffering manic depression. doesn't matter if it's in a safe, doesn't matter if it's a family heirloom.3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

1. My wife has been an expert witness in commitment cases, though not in CA. Involuntary commitment is much harder than you're assuming, though doubtless there are a few asshole judges out there who wield it like a weapon. Aren't there always?2. This part of the law is against keeping firearms in the same home, not against ownership. Either store your family heirloom, or your suicidal little brother, elsewhere and the state won't care. As for your gun safe, how secure is it really from someone living in your home? Would it be that difficult for your little brother to get his hands on the key while you're asleep? Could it really not be forced open while you're at work, by tools already in your home? Ours certainly could. It'd take some time and make lots of noise, but I could open it. And I'm disabled and can barely walk.3. Here we are generally in agreement, at least in the cases where the gun was legally owned but being kept in an ineligible home. For those, it should be possible to pay a fine, show proof you've acquired proper storage, and retrieve it.

Thank you for your well-thought out response. In #2 I used an example, not an actual case. If I did have a suicidal little brother, I would indeed most likely have my guns stored in another location - although my first defense would be a whole lot of time and effort spent with him. After all, I can't lock away every possible way of suicide.However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.

Happy Hours:A couple of people in this thread have pointed out that the guns are destroyed thus precluding any possibility of returning them, but even if the confiscated guns should never be returned, why destroy them?

Why not auction them off?

And if you're worried about the wrong people buying them at auction, limit the auction to federally licensed firearms dealers.

The fact that they're destroying them is a huge sign to me that the goal is to eliminate as many guns as possible.

Oh good, give the state a profit incentive, no way that will be abused.

Telling people they should avoid mental health providers over fears that they will lose thier guns is the STUPIDEST reason to not seek mental health when you are feeling unstable in any way shape or form. Seeing a "shrink" does not get your gun removed in California, being INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental hospital is the qualifier.... Learn to read dumbasses.

Vtimlin:This is how it starts. Eventually it will be a DUI that makes you not elligible to own a gun. They will keep chipping away.

I see it the other way around. Instead of taking guns away from everyone, they are saying, "Who is likely to commit a mass murder with a gun?" Then they are working to disarm those people.

This is exactly as it should be. The people who want to stockpile guns can continue to do so. The people who want action to prevent mass murder get some form of action that actually addresses the issue.

monoski:Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

i know you're probably trolling, but at least felons had their day in court, it only takes one person to declare you "mentally ill" and take away your rights, demoting you to second class citizen. Are you mentally Ill? did he just not like you? where is the oversight?

either everyone can have guns or no one can have guns, thats my 2 cents

Satanic_Hamster:That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments. So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?

The reason I submitted this was that the NRA has it on their site, and they're essentially trying to convince people that the next step is bundling people on cattle trains to Aushwitz, because you, you-know-who-else-confiscated-guns and all that BS.

Bong Hits For Mohammed:If a felon has done his time, and been released from prison, why shouldn't he be able to exercise his natural rights?

I can see the recidivism argument. How about this:

1. Mentally ill that are a danger to others: no guns. period. this needs to be a well regulated process, however, not the current "he raped me" BS that gets any guy served with a restraining order overnight.2. felons can own only shotguns, and only after approved by a separate court after they've done their time. the restriction is less for fear they'll commit crime (we know that criminals dont' follow laws to being with) but to be a lasting effect of their lost rights.3. if you are convicted of a violent felony, all your guns are seized and sold at auction. 100% of the proceeds go to your victims, then the rest goes to your family.